Puzzle caches are not necesarily puzzles anymore...

[CoyoteRed]

Why would an owner want to deny someone logging a legitimate find?

Maybe you should ask this guy, he might know:

Don't forget to add the ability of my caches to not be included in anyone's find count. If I don't want to play the smilie game, I don't want my caches playing either.

Yeah? And? How are the two related?

 

Me not wanting my caches to not increment one's public find count is not preventing one to claim a find. The cache history is intact. The finder's history is intact. So what if the smilie count is off?

[+Muniman]

I read the first page of posts. which kept my interest until the flaming started. Then I just came here to post. I am sorry if I missed something in my skip.

 

Maybe I am missing something here. First I choose the caches I wish to find. When I travel I usually load traditional caches, because I am traveling and do not wish to spend time with a multi or puzzle. I want to find log and leave. When I go on a multi run I know that I am getting into. When I go to get Mysterys I do my homework before I leave. ETC.

 

here are some things I do not understand about this conversation:

 

1) How many ALR Caches are there. I live in what I consider a fairly cache-dense area and I have found only one in over 1000 finds. If I got home and found (after the fact) that there was a ALR. OK so I do not get to log that one. It is one cache, not twenty. And I would guess not too difficult to find. I know the one I found took maybe 10 minutes of my time.

 

2) I lost track exactly where the conversation changed from where they should be filed (traditional or Mystery) to if they should exist at all. My two cents here: The owner may put any adidtional requirements their heart desires (I believe 8-19 on the list), if the cacher fails to do their homework before they leave (or while they are caching) then the fault lies on them. Very similar to "Buyer Beware". I would expect (and Hope) they they would be filed under Mystery which implies there they are not log and leave caches.

 

I know I repeated what some of you have posted.

 

In conclusion, if I do not get to log a cache because I did not do my homework, that is OK. I will either go back and do it right or find one of the other 650,000 caches out there. Have a nice day.

[+tozainamboku]

Let me rephrase the question a bit as we are not on the same page: why would anyone make someone do something beyond merely finding the cache in order to properly use the functions of this site to keep track of their activities?

I think you're going to have to re-educate yourself on what the "proper use" of the site is. If the guidelines themselves specify how ALR caches are to be handled, how can you say anyone is keeping others from properly using the sites functions?

The functions are that when you find a cache you can record your visit to make a history of your visit for the cache and for yourself. An ALR interferes with that.

Jeremy made one big mistake by creating 'Found It' logs and 'Did Not Find It' logs. He should have just had logs where you record your experience. You would just say in your log whether or not you found the cache. There could have been a check box that said "hide this cache from future searches" You could have checked the box to mark you found the cache or just because you wanted to ignore this cache. The box would be invisible to the cache owner or any one except you. If the cache owner deleted your log, the box would still be in effect. My guess is that cache owners would still have had requirements to post pictures or write haiku or whatever in your log. They would delete your log but you would still have the check box checked. Similarly, if someone posted they found your cache while sitting at a desk in Germany, you could delete their log, but they would still have their check box. The site could even report the number of check boxes a person had. We would all know that it didn't mean anything because you use the same check box to mark a cache found as you did for ignoring a cache, and cache owners would have no control over the check box. Of course one advantage is that you would only get at most one check box per cache.

[CoyoteRed]

Let me rephrase the question a bit as we are not on the same page: why would anyone make someone do something beyond merely finding the cache in order to properly use the functions of this site to keep track of their activities?

I think you're going to have to re-educate yourself on what the "proper use" of the site is. If the guidelines themselves specify how ALR caches are to be handled, how can you say anyone is keeping others from properly using the sites functions?

The functions are that when you find a cache you can record your visit to make a history of your visit for the cache and for yourself. An ALR interferes with that.

Jeremy made one big mistake by creating 'Found It' logs and 'Did Not Find It' logs. He should have just had logs where you record your experience. You would just say in your log whether or not you found the cache. There could have been a check box that said "hide this cache from future searches" You could have checked the box to mark you found the cache or just because you wanted to ignore this cache. The box would be invisible to the cache owner or any one except you. If the cache owner deleted your log, the box would still be in effect. My guess is that cache owners would still have had requirements to post pictures or write haiku or whatever in your log. They would delete your log but you would still have the check box checked. Similarly, if someone posted they found your cache while sitting at a desk in Germany, you could delete their log, but they would still have their check box. The site could even report the number of check boxes a person had. We would all know that it didn't mean anything because you use the same check box to mark a cache found as you did for ignoring a cache, and cache owners would have no control over the check box. Of course one advantage is that you would only get at most one check box per cache.

I agree. Mostly.

 

I do like that a Find It log reports the date last found. I feel this function is useful for future seekers to determine whether they want to hunt that cache as some do feel as comfortable hunting a cache that hasn't been found in a long time. However, later visits to a cache posted as note and not finds don't update the last found date even though someone pretty much just confirmed the cache is there and relatively healthy. (Hopefully someone dropping off a TB would report a problem with the cache.)

 

If I were to built the logging scheme, I'd make it so you could log as many visits to a cache as you wish. Marking a find on a cache would be private considering everyone seems to have a different definition of "find." You could check boxes to ignore the cache in the cache list, report maintenance issues, SBAs, etc.

 

Basically, I'd redo it so it falls closer inline with how I feel the hobby should be: less sport and more hobby. I'm sure there are those who would pooh-pooh the whole idea because they do feel it is a sport and that's fine. I'm just saying how I'd do it.

[+KBI]

Why would an owner want to deny someone logging a legitimate find?

Maybe you should ask this guy, he might know:

Don't forget to add the ability of my caches to not be included in anyone's find count. If I don't want to play the smilie game, I don't want my caches playing either.

Yeah? And? How are the two related?

 

Me not wanting my caches to not increment one's public find count is not preventing one to claim a find. The cache history is intact. The finder's history is intact. So what if the smilie count is off?

Me (as the owner of an ALR) not wanting my cache to increment one's public find count (assuming they fail to comply with the ALR) is ALSO not preventing one to claim a find. They can post a note if they like, or they can log it on one of their own caches.

 

"So what if the smilie count is off?" Don't ask me. You're the one who posed the original question. That's why I referred you to CoyoteRed, the guy who wants to withhold smilies from finders of his caches.

 

You two should talk it out. Let us know what ya'll decide.

[+KBI]

Let me rephrase the question a bit as we are not on the same page: why would anyone make someone do something beyond merely finding the cache in order to properly use the functions of this site to keep track of their activities?

I think you're going to have to re-educate yourself on what the "proper use" of the site is. If the guidelines themselves specify how ALR caches are to be handled, how can you say anyone is keeping others from properly using the sites functions?

The functions are that when you find a cache you can record your visit to make a history of your visit for the cache and for yourself. An ALR interferes with that.

Not according to the guidelines:

Mystery or Puzzle Caches

 

Caches with mandatory requirements in addition to signing the logbook should be listed as mystery caches. Examples include sending the cache owner a verification codeword found inside the logbook, performing some task at the cache location and taking a photograph, or writing the online log in a format or with content that satisfies the cache requirements. The mystery cache designation assists finders in identifying that something extra is required in order to log a find.

The official published guidelines clearly support the existence of ALR caches. Obviously, then, your argument is not with the guideline-compliant owners of ALR hides.

 

You may now cease your attacks on those cache owners.

 

Your disagreement is with the guidelines themselves – and the people who wrote them. Please take it up with the owners of this website if avoiding ALRs isn’t enough for you, and if you are unsatisfied with any particular guideline-compliant way in which certain people choose to enjoy the hobby.

 

[Edit: spelling]

Edited November 8, 2008 by KBI

[+WatchDog2020]

My view on this is simple: If the cache is at the listed coordinates, it should NOT be a puzzle cache, period.

 

What if the cache is the puzzle? I just launched one today that can be easily found, but the 'puzzle' is how to open it. There is a requirement that you have to sign the log book. so it is a Mystery cache, other cache and a puzzle cache. Ain't no traditional for sure

[Mushtang]

Let me rephrase the question a bit as we are not on the same page: why would anyone make someone do something beyond merely finding the cache in order to properly use the functions of this site to keep track of their activities?

I think you're going to have to re-educate yourself on what the "proper use" of the site is. If the guidelines themselves specify how ALR caches are to be handled, how can you say anyone is keeping others from properly using the sites functions?

The functions are that when you find a cache you can record your visit to make a history of your visit for the cache and for yourself. An ALR interferes with that.

That's how the function works with all non-ALR caches. The guidelines for the site, written by the folks that run the site, determine how logs can be maintained on the site.

 

If you want to keep a history of visiting an ALR cache on your own spreadsheet without logging a Find on the site you're free to do so. An ALR won't interfere at all.

 

You're arguing that a function of the site is not available to you because you're not using the function properly (according to the guidelines) by performing the ALR. Maybe it's neither the site, nor the ALR cache owners, that aren't behaving.

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

ALR = Additional Logging REQUIREMENT

ALO = Additional Logging OPTION

 

I personally am frightened of any caching trend that leads to REQUIREMENTS which I may not meet because of being unaware or unwilling to comply. (I'm not taking a photo in the nude in a downtown park - sorry)

 

Cache owners are very diverse and some may ask me to do things I don't want to do in order to log their cache. That's fine on the surface - you can use the old "don't like, don't find" line, but as more and more caches become constrained, then it becomes more and more "work" to filter and plan and less and less "fun". I'm already filtering out half the caches in my area because they have an element that doesn't interest me (container size).

 

Just don't have any REQUIREMENTS. Make the game fun, invite people to take a photo (or not), suggests a "theme" if you want. If it requires a problem/puzzle-solving effort - make it a puzzle cache. Even if the puzzle is "at the location" where the cache is hidden.

[Mushtang]

Just don't have any REQUIREMENTS.

What would you say to those folks that only hunt micros if they said, "Just don't have any non micro caches"?

 

Do you think the scuba enthusiasts would appreciate it if I said, "Just don't have any underwater caches" just because I don't scuba dive and didn't want to find any?

 

What about my coworker that thinks the entire game is stupid... what would you say to him if he told you "Just don't have any geocaches at all"?

 

Personally I don't want to have to make sure all my caches are enjoyed by every single cacher, so if I decide I want to hide an ALR and you don't like it, just skip it. That's the point of making them part of the Unknown type, so you'll know you should read the description to get necessary information. Once you have this information, you can decide to avoid it.

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

Just don't have any REQUIREMENTS.

What would you say to those folks that only hunt micros if they said, "Just don't have any non micro caches"?

 

Do you think the scuba enthusiasts would appreciate it if I said, "Just don't have any underwater caches" just because I don't scuba dive and didn't want to find any?

 

What about my coworker that thinks the entire game is stupid... what would you say to him if he told you "Just don't have any geocaches at all"?

 

Personally I don't want to have to make sure all my caches are enjoyed by every single cacher, so if I decide I want to hide an ALR and you don't like it, just skip it. That's the point of making them part of the Unknown type, so you'll know you should read the description to get necessary information. Once you have this information, you can decide to avoid it.

 

Okay. You're right. Let me change my post.

 

Don't have any stupid requirements that simply seek to force your non-sensical agenda upon others in an effort to control them in ways that make little or no sense to the spirit of the game.

 

Obviously, some caches will have inherent requirements that define the cache and cache type. I have no problems with Mystery caches, micros, SCUBA, rock-climbing, hill stepping caches.

 

The issue I take is with caches marked as "Traditional" that are, in fact, requiring some stupid logging requirement. Such as "pink items only or your log will be deleted". Is that type of "control" really helpful or keeping in the spirit of the "game"?

 

Like I said, at some point - the data-mining required to "find" a cache is more than the effort of even going out to find them.

 

Maybe that's why I don't even bother logging 60% of my finds any more.

 

What we need is a new log-type that can't be deleted - "found and was unimpressed"

[Mushtang]

Okay. You're right. Let me change my post.

 

Don't have any stupid requirements that simply seek to force your non-sensical agenda upon others in an effort to control them in ways that make little or no sense to the spirit of the game.

You changed the words, but the meaning is still the same. You don't want there to be caches that YOU don't like, even if you've been given evidence that lots of other cachers still enjoy them.

 

Obviously, some caches will have inherent requirements that define the cache and cache type. I have no problems with Mystery caches, micros, SCUBA, rock-climbing, hill stepping caches.

 

The issue I take is with caches marked as "Traditional" that are, in fact, requiring some stupid logging requirement. Such as "pink items only or your log will be deleted".

If these are listed as Traditional, then I agree that they shouldn't be. They should be listed as an Unknown type.

 

Is that type of "control" really helpful or keeping in the spirit of the "game"?

Are the puzzles you have to solve in puzzle caches really helpful or keeping in the spirit of the "game" (you'll have elaborate on what the spirit is)?

 

Like I said, at some point - the data-mining required to "find" a cache is more than the effort of even going out to find them.

 

Maybe that's why I don't even bother logging 60% of my finds any more.

 

What we need is a new log-type that can't be deleted - "found and was unimpressed"

Or how about a filter for Caches That Lemon Fresh Dog Doesn't Like? That way you could easily avoid the caches you don't want to see without having to do any work at all.

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

Or how about a filter for Caches That Lemon Fresh Dog Doesn't Like? That way you could easily avoid the caches you don't want to see without having to do any work at all.

 

Well... that *would* be nice.

 

No need for Groundspeak to do that though - I've got that covered - no micros for me for example.

 

Insults aside.

 

The *meaning* of my post is that any logging "requirements" should be within the guidelines of the cache type. I have NO problem with a puzzle cache requiring....er....the solving of a puzzle! Or an underwater cache requiring SCUBA gear, or a cache on a hill requiring a hike. I'm a little miffed at caches that require the finder to be dressed-up as a Princess and only trade for magic wands.

 

What I am stating is that making a cache with unique (and, in many cases arbitrary) logging requirements AND marking these as TRADITIONAL caches is not my cup of tea - and something I PERSONALLY find annoying. To each their own.

 

So... to clarify by way of example.

 

IF a cache is created that requires a special logging requirement (let's say, you are required to take a photo of yourself at the cache). Then it is NEITHER a puzzle (unless it's a trick camera), NOR is it a traditional cache. (it can't be found and logged - you need to do something special). Is it a Mystery? Maybe.... a silly mystery with little intrigue.

 

It's an annoyance! (to me and maybe only to me).

 

I think that having special logging requirements for NON-puzzle caches in rude and not in keeping with the spirit of the game - hide/find. That's just me.

 

What happens is that folks find these caches, but are then told that it doesn't "count" as a find due to some mandatory logging requirement.

 

As this is an open-discussion forum - I am expressing my displeasure at that - and, while I thank you for the standard "then don't find them","filter them" and "do it your way, leave me alone" comments - the point is missed. It is those that seek to modify the game through the arbitrary application of logging requirements that are, in fact, modifying and "controlling" others enjoyment of the activity by failing to properly label their caches - they throw them into the "traditional" bucket and expect others to sift through their junk.

 

Not a big deal. If I find a cache with logging requirements, I'll log it anyhow. If the log gets deleted I go pee on the cache (kidding!) Although... I suppose I have the "right" to....

 

Anyhow. No harm, no foul. The discussion was on puzzle caches that aren't really puzzles. It should be pretty obvious what a puzzle is - something you need to solve.

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

dupe

Edited November 9, 2008 by Lemon Fresh Dog

[+sportside]

Or how about a filter for Caches That Lemon Fresh Dog Doesn't Like? That way you could easily avoid the caches you don't want to see without having to do any work at all.

 

Well... that *would* be nice.

 

No need for Groundspeak to do that though - I've got that covered - no micros for me for example.

 

Insults aside.

 

The *meaning* of my post is that any logging "requirements" should be within the guidelines of the cache type. I have NO problem with a puzzle cache requiring....er....the solving of a puzzle! Or an underwater cache requiring SCUBA gear, or a cache on a hill requiring a hike. I'm a little miffed at caches that require the finder to be dressed-up as a Princess and only trade for magic wands.

 

What I am stating is that making a cache with unique (and, in many cases arbitrary) logging requirements AND marking these as TRADITIONAL caches is not my cup of tea - and something I PERSONALLY find annoying. To each their own.

 

So... to clarify by way of example.

 

IF a cache is created that requires a special logging requirement (let's say, you are required to take a photo of yourself at the cache). Then it is NEITHER a puzzle (unless it's a trick camera), NOR is it a traditional cache. (it can't be found and logged - you need to do something special). Is it a Mystery? Maybe.... a silly mystery with little intrigue.

 

It's an annoyance! (to me and maybe only to me).

 

I think that having special logging requirements for NON-puzzle caches in rude and not in keeping with the spirit of the game - hide/find. That's just me.

 

What happens is that folks find these caches, but are then told that it doesn't "count" as a find due to some mandatory logging requirement.

 

As this is an open-discussion forum - I am expressing my displeasure at that - and, while I thank you for the standard "then don't find them","filter them" and "do it your way, leave me alone" comments - the point is missed. It is those that seek to modify the game through the arbitrary application of logging requirements that are, in fact, modifying and "controlling" others enjoyment of the activity by failing to properly label their caches - they throw them into the "traditional" bucket and expect others to sift through their junk.

 

Not a big deal. If I find a cache with logging requirements, I'll log it anyhow. If the log gets deleted I go pee on the cache (kidding!) Although... I suppose I have the "right" to....

 

Anyhow. No harm, no foul. The discussion was on puzzle caches that aren't really puzzles. It should be pretty obvious what a puzzle is - something you need to solve.

You mean like THIS local cache? Not high on my 'must do' list...

[+tozainamboku]

So... to clarify by way of example.

 

IF a cache is created that requires a special logging requirement (let's say, you are required to take a photo of yourself at the cache). Then it is NEITHER a puzzle (unless it's a trick camera), NOR is it a traditional cache. (it can't be found and logged - you need to do something special). Is it a Mystery? Maybe.... a silly mystery with little intrigue.

If a cache has an additional requirement such as taking a picture of yourself at the cache, it fits is the stated guides for a mystery/unknown type. Why are you having trouble with that? You are correct in stating that a cache with such a requirement is not a traditional cache. Go an read the guidelines.

 

Perhaps you think that all mystery type caches should be puzzles. Please look at the guidelines again. This category is a "catch-all" for all caches that fit in the other types. Caches where the coordinates need to be figured out by solving some puzzle might be the majority of these caches. The type is also used for Challenge type caches where you must first find some set of other caches before being allowed to log this cache or for any other special requirements that need to be met to log the cache. There have been discussions in the forums about whether puzzle caches should have their own type separate from other mystery cache types.

It's an annoyance! (to me and maybe only to me).

 

I think that having special logging requirements for NON-puzzle caches in rude and not in keeping with the spirit of the game - hide/find. That's just me.

 

What happens is that folks find these caches, but are then told that it doesn't "count" as a find due to some mandatory logging requirement.

 

It's probably not just you. There have been complaints about additional logging requirements back when they could be listed as traditional caches. Because of these complaints the guidelines were changed to require that any cache with such a requirement must be listed as mystery/puzzle type. Since many of the caches in the mystery type are puzzles, a finder has to read the cache page before hunting a cache. If the cache has an additional logging requirement, a cacher should know this before going to look for the cache. If the cacher still looks for the cache and doesn't intend to do the additional logging requirement, I don't see why they should feel cheated to if their log is deleted.

 

As this is an open-discussion forum - I am expressing my displeasure at that - and, while I thank you for the standard "then don't find them","filter them" and "do it your way, leave me alone" comments - the point is missed. It is those that seek to modify the game through the arbitrary application of logging requirements that are, in fact, modifying and "controlling" others enjoyment of the activity by failing to properly label their caches - they throw them into the "traditional" bucket and expect others to sift through their junk.

 

Not a big deal. If I find a cache with logging requirements, I'll log it anyhow. If the log gets deleted I go pee on the cache (kidding!) Although... I suppose I have the "right" to....

 

Anyhow. No harm, no foul. The discussion was on puzzle caches that aren't really puzzles. It should be pretty obvious what a puzzle is - something you need to solve.

You already stated that you don't log 60% of the caches you find. I presume that is because these are caches you didn't like. If you don't like additional logging requirements and you go and find a cache with one anyhow, you have the choice of not logging that cache online. If you want to tell everyone about your experience looking for the cache write a note. If a cache owner deletes your note because you didn't meet the additional logging requirement then post that in the forums (because that would be an interesting discussion).

Edited November 9, 2008 by tozainamboku

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

Opps.

 

I *think* or at least *thought* that I was really only annoyed with caches that are marked as TRADITIONAL requiring logging requirements. At least that's what I wrote here. How did you think that I had a problem with puzzle caches? Unless I wrote something odd.

 

Puzzles caches should be.... puzzles (I don't care if it's on-site (like a code, etc), or puzzle to move me to another set of coords). I just want to know ahead of time.

Mysteries should be.... well... mysterious? I don't know. Is dressing as a woman to log a find mysterious? It's certainly mysterious as to why anyone would place such a cache, but live and let live I suppose. A nice soft pair of woman's panties is certainly a nice change of..... but I digress.....

 

Personally, I like the wording "Special Requirements" as a cache type. It would be pretty clear.

 

Of course, on me it's all lost as I use a Oregon 400t and have all the cache notes at hand - so I can make "in-the-field" decisions on what to hunt and what to ignore and what to pee on <--- kidding.

[+jtbrady01]

I have the 400t as well. One of the issue I run into is a cache page that is loaded with graphics or is written so long that it is truncated and doesn't fit onto the 400t. It is listed as a Traditional cache. I go out find the cache get home log it. Then get the delete log notice because I didn't take a photograph of myself on some stupid playground toy. When I go back and read the cache page the owner posted a note at the bottom of the cache description stating that they decided to add this additional requirement of the photograph. So, regardless if we have you take a photo or write a specific type of log. Once the review signs off on the cache page the owner can go back and change it up. So, if you're like me and don't always get the benefit of seeing the whole cache page you end up with these delete logs.

[Keystone]

I have the 400t as well. One of the issue I run into is a cache page that is loaded with graphics or is written so long that it is truncated and doesn't fit onto the 400t. It is listed as a Traditional cache. I go out find the cache get home log it. Then get the delete log notice because I didn't take a photograph of myself on some stupid playground toy. When I go back and read the cache page the owner posted a note at the bottom of the cache description stating that they decided to add this additional requirement of the photograph. So, regardless if we have you take a photo or write a specific type of log. Once the review signs off on the cache page the owner can go back and change it up. So, if you're like me and don't always get the benefit of seeing the whole cache page you end up with these delete logs.

When a cache is changed post-publication so as to make it non-compliant with the listing guidelines, your volunteer cache reviewer will be happy to help get the problem fixed. And Groundspeak can help with the wrongfully deleted log.

 

So, if this cache was published as a traditional after the effective date of the guideline change regarding ALR's, a remedy is available. You're welcome to pursue that, or simply walk away from the mess.